14 April 2011 2:58 PM

The Civil Sword

That depends what one is being squeamish about. Being squeamish about the careful use of force and violence against guilty persons convicted in fair trials to defend peace, order and safety is quite different from being repelled (as so few are, but I am ) about blowing innocent German civilians to bits in their homes, or baking them to death in firestorms, because you can't make contact with the enemy's army.

Funny, in fact, that so many who are squeamish about the swift and humane execution of justly convicted killers are so relaxed about the mass murder, often by tearing them to pieces with metal instruments, of unborn babies, the bombing of Belgrade, Baghdad and Afghanistan (and now of Libya).

'Bert' continues: ' and just because you don’t think it’s right for the state to kill doesn’t mean that you don’t want to defend what is right.'

Well, yes it does, if you think it's fine for the state to kill, or license killing, for other purposes that suit you. Which is why people who support such policies always claim(though without explaining why) that the predictably lethal wars or predictably lethal transport policies they like are not in any way comparable to the existence of a death penalty. Not to mention the predictably lethal arming of the police, a direct consequence of the abolition of lawful execution in Britain.

And it also does if by disarming yourself you unleash much greater violence on those you are supposed to be protecting. And I have established here that greater violence has followed the abolition of the death penalty, something my emotional spasm opponents don't like discussing.

He then asks: ' As for your peroration, do you really think, in the cold light of day, that scrapping the death penalty is a “betrayal of civilisation”?'

Absolutely. The colder the light, the more I think it.

A civilisation that won't defend itself will soon cease to exist. QED.

'Curtis' submits :'What about John's gospel, 7.53-8.11? A crowd asks Jesus if a woman, just caught in adultery, should be executed, by stoning. This was the law in Jerusalem then Jesus stops the execution by saying ‘That one of you who is faultless shall throw the first stone.’ This passage makes me think that if Jesus were around today, he would oppose the death penalty, on the grounds that no one is good enough to execute anyone'.

(A note in brackets: This provides an illustration of how much we have lost thanks to the discarding of the Authorised Version of the Bible, in which the words are rendered so much more memorably as : 'He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her'. (How is this hard to understand as it is? Or archaic? It only contains two words of more than one syllable, and they are 'without' and 'among') )

The incident seems to me to be too specific, to the sin of adultery, to allow of this interpretation. Also, taken in company with Christ's behaviour before, during (and, as it happens, after) his own trial and execution, it cannot be used to make such a point. Without the latter, it might serve. With it, it does not. He intervenes to prevent an act of gross hypocrisy and (as so often in his life and ministry) to take the side of a woman against male hypocrisy or dislike. Not to object to the penalty as such ( had there been a sinless person there, that is to say anyone who had not committed adultery himself, Christ presumably could not have objected if he had cast the first stone).

Mr Walker runs away from the argument thus :'You yourself were the person who started the emotional side of this debate. All that nonsense about 'wielding the sword of civil society' etc. Sounds good but is not an argument'.

I didn't offer it as an argument. I have set out my argument in detail in articles findable through the index, and in the relevant chapter in my book, which Mr Walker ( despite my urgings) has chosen not to read , preferring to get het up and then flounce off. Like so many abolitionists, he prefers self-righteous emotionalism to a cool analysis of the practicalities. He is, perhaps, afraid of losing in such a contest. The phrase 'The Civil Sword' is just an expression, used by persons as various as John Milton and Andrew Jackson to refer to the state's monopoly of violence. If it upsets or otherwise unsettles Mr Walker, I cannot help it.

The person hiding behind the name 'Scaramanga' thinks he is being satirical when he is in fact just being boring.

Mr Charles writes: ' "Strict pacifists can use the risk of innocent death as an absolute reason for opposing execution (provided they also wish to ban private motor cars)." This utilitarian nonsense could've been written by Jeremy Bentham.'

Really? If I were to advance the perfectly good Christian arguments for a death penalty, namely the greatly heightened chance of genuine repentance and remorse on the part of the killer, not to mention the large number of murderers who commit suicide, which is gravely distressing to a believer, Mr Charles and others would jeer at me for superstition and mumbo-jumbo. So I stick to the things they can understand, which are measurable on a materialist calculating machine (however desiccated) and are equally true. But people who would jeer at a transcendental argument cannot really, in all consistency, also jeer at a utilitarian one.

He continues: 'PH exhibits a massive failure of imagination in regard to what capital punishment does to society as a whole.'

He should be more specific. I am not sure what imagination I need to deploy here. I have myself witnessed two executions in a foreign jurisdiction. I grew up in a society with a death penalty, and it was chiefly different from today's in being more peaceful and less violent, and having an unarmed police force.

He adds: 'I would HATE to live in a society that was ruled by retribution. I aspire to something better. I'd refer him to my earlier post on this thread if he wants clarification.'

I still don't see what's wrong with retribution forming part of a criminal justice system. Indeed, I can't see how it could function or long survive without it. And I suspect Mr Charles doesn't have my experience of seeing inside several prisons. I have no doubt that long-term imprisonment is immeasurably more cruel than swift execution. But 'ruled' by retribution? Hardly. Though the anarchy towards which we are heading, as justice fails, will be ruled by vengeance and blood-feuds.

Share this article:

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

If this argument is to be based on Biblical witness on the subject, it would seem to be worth noting that, elsewhere in the Bible, in the Old Testament, the death penalty is explicitly permitted for a variety of actions in ancient Israeli civil society. As God is unchanging in His nature, and thus so are His moral laws, we can at the very least say that the death penalty is not positively immoral from a Biblical point of view. As one of the principles of the Church of England is not to interpret one passage of Scripture in such a manner as to be repugnant to another passage, we cannot therefore take Jesus' meaning to be an explicit condemnation of the death penalty as an entity in the (disputed) passage of John 7:53-8:11.

'The incident seems to me to be too specific, to the sin of adultery, to allow of this interpretation (that no-one is good enough to execute anyone else). Also, taken in company with Christ's behaviour before, during (and, as it happens, after) his own trial and execution, it cannot be used to make such a point. Without the latter, it might serve. With it, it does not. He intervenes to prevent an act of gross hypocrisy and (as so often in his life and ministry) to take the side of a woman against male hypocrisy or dislike. Not to object to the penalty as such ( had there been a sinless person there, that is to say anyone who had not committed adultery himself, Christ presumably could not have objected if he had cast the first stone).'

So the guilty can punish the guilty in every crime other than adultery (not the usual interpretation but fair enough: if we are to have a system of justice at all then this must be allowed)

BUT with adultery you can justly stone a woman to death so long as you haven't committed adultery yourself 'Christ presumably could not have objected'.

On Mr Hyde's good point about imprisoning dragging us down to kidnappers, taxing dragging us down to thieves etc:

Yes imprisonment degrades us tax degrades us- government is an evil but it is often the lesser of many other evils. This is the line of reasoning from which you can depart wherever your ideological train reaches its stop:

1. The state is necessary for the common good (Anarchists depart)
2. In order for the state to function imprisonment for crime and tax are necessary, in the sense that no state could function without them, although they are degrading (Anarcho-syndicalists, Utopians depart)
3. Execution is the most degrading act a state can perform because it drags us down to the lowest level: that of a murderer therefore it is justified only if it is necessary for Government to function (as, if you have got this far, then Government is necessary). (Utilitarians depart- who cares about degradation? Where is your civil sword sir? Draw if you be a man!)
4. Execution, as a history of the west has shown over the last 4 decades, is not necessary for the state to function therefore is not justified. (PH, Muslims and others who hate our way of life (see 'The Big Questions') depart)

I would reiterate much of what Harrison said, except in perhaps less provocative terms.

Mr. Hitchens' description of abortion is sheer rhetoric. ''Funny, in fact, that so many who are squeamish about the swift and humane execution of justly convicted killers are so relaxed about the mass murder, often by tearing them to pieces with metal instruments, of unborn babies'

90% of abortions, I believe, occur before 14 weeks. At this stage, termination is predominantly vacuum abortion, and even later on, 'tearing to pieces' is hardly an accurate description, unpleasant though the procedure is. I just don't see how anyone can view the swift termination of a non-sentient being for the mother's welfare as morally comparable to the killing of a grown human, or indeed 'the bombing of Belgrade, Baghdad and Afghanistan (and now of Libya).'

There may be a good argument for the death penalty - one of deterrent- but it is the only good argument, and it can be disputed. Retribution is not a good reason. Mr. Hitchens says, 'I still don't see what's wrong with retribution forming part of a criminal justice system. Indeed, I can't see how it could function or long survive without it.' But surely it is not retribution which is necessary, but the deterrent aspect of the justice system. There is no point in making punishment any more unpleasant than it needs to be to deter criminals.

Retribution just isn't a reason for anything, and it has a brutalising quality on the mindset of society, as the baying mobs which used to attend public hangings demonstrate. Rather than satisfy a longing for justice, it encourages bloodthirstiness, it seems to me, for we can only bring ourselves to support the execution of a fellow human being on an emotional level, and to an extent on an intellectual level, if we cease to regard him or her as fully human.

Around twenty-five years ago I listened to a speaker comment on an anti seal clubbing demonstration in Canada. I quote;

"While the demonstrators undoubtably have sincerely held views I suspect that many of them would not so much blink at the prospect of aborting a viable, healthy human baby".

To my knowledge the speaker in question has never been allowed near a broadcast studio since. Your correspondent naming him, or more likely, herself Harrison unintentionally nails the matter. Unlike Harrison I believe that there is a moral difference between a medium rare steak and a dead, aborted baby. I do not look in terror at plate of rib-eye and fries.

Harrison also plays the old card of reducing a human life to the medical term "foetus". Once you have taken that step it is much easier to quantify a person as an "it" and completely divorce yourself from any piffling moral scruples you may or may not have.

Also, the inexcusable cold blooded murder of abortion practitioners in the USA is not an argument for justifying the wholesale butchering of millions of unborn babies. Harrison may be correct ( but I suspect not ) when claiming that the unborn child is not capable of love or empathy. What is demonstrably certain is that Harrison is also a stranger to these traits.

Mr Charles says :' PH isn't answering the point earlier in the thread that I referred to That swift judicial execution might be merciful to the perpetrator, but leaves a deep and permanent scar on his/her relatives and friends. What have they done to deserve this egregious punishment save for being the child/wife/friend of the hanged man?. That bitterness doesn't go away. It can lead to all sorts of unpleasant outcomes.'

**I reply : Well, this is one of those imperfections that cannot be avoided. People should think of such things before they commit bloody murder. I can tell Mr Charles (from correspondence received which 'Bert' will discount as insignificant) that the effect of a murder on the relatives of a murdered person is lasting and appalling. (Note : 'egregious' means 'outstanding'. I do not think this can be Mr Charles's intended meaning) . My aim is to reduce the number of murders, and the misery which follows from them. I came to the conclusion that the death penalty was the best way of doing so against my own strong inclinations, because the facts and the logic were so powerful.

Mr Charles continues :' But my deeper concern stretches back to the days of Tyburn. We might have taken executions indoors but that didn't prevent the repulsive prurience associated with executions persisting.'

** I reply : What is he referring to? . He should read Dickens's description of a public execution (he wrote a newspaper account, and also a fictional account in 'Barnaby Rudge', and the public guillotining scene in Arnold Bennett's 'The Old Wives' Tale' (likewise drawn form the life) and compare these with the conduct of executions in modern Britain and the USA. There is no comparison. What prurience?

He continues :'And yes I have seen inside prisons. Armley gaol is a ghastly place and I've spent several hours there on two separate occasions. And no, I wouldn't wish it on anyone. But PH isn't seriously suggesting that the reintroduction of capital punishment will do away with long prison sentences?'

**As a matter of fact, I am seriously suggesting that, yes. I believe sentences in general have been greatly inflated since capital punishment was abolished, and the huge number of murderers serving long (so-called 'life' ) sentences is one of the principal reasons for the overcrowding of our prisons. When we still had the death penalty, reprieved killers were often released after surprisingly short jail terms. Nobody needed to make a political point by keeping them inside. Once again, I do wish people would take the trouble to read the relevant chapter in my book.

Mr Charles continues :'My teenage son was recently the victim of a vicious unprovoked assault that left him with concussion and loose teeth. I've gone through the whole gamut of emotions. I know what that thirst for revenge and retribution feels like. But it's not a side of me that I like nor one that I seek to encourage. Sure I want the perpetrator punished but I don't want him brutalised. Because it brutalises all of us.'
**I am grived to hear it, but I don't know what he means by 'brutalised'. It strikes me that the perpetrator of this crime is already pretty brutal, and likely to remain so as long as he is strong and fit enough. There is no evidence that the characters of adults can be altered by any manner of rehabilitation or training. In which case, they need, in my view, to be so scared of committing such crimes that they dare not do it. Why must we pretend all the time that fear has no effect on human beings?

While we wait for the other social reforms we so badly need, such a protection would be better than nothing. I have no idea how I am 'brutalised' by ensuring that brutes are scared of the law.

He adds that he is 'sincerely glad that, as with so many other things that PH is nostalgic for, the chances of its return are next to zero.'

**He shouldn't be too sure. Left-wing People's Republics, such as we are becoming, rapidly overcome their scruples about the death penalty once the left are fully in charge.(Most death penalties are carried out in left-wing countries). It will return, as a panic populist measure, before too very long, without the protections which make it tolerable. It is partly for that reason that I seek to restore it now, to prevent the despairing panic populism that will otherwise soon take hold.

As for the murderer of Joe Tiller, assuming he has been properly convicted according to law for a premeditated murder (I have not followed the case) then I have no difficulty whatever in saying that this murderer should be promptly executed. Why would I?

A prtson who seems to think he is a bog or swamp posts L; Mr Hitchens surely contradicts himself here:
"" I have no doubt that long-term imprisonment is immeasurably more cruel than swift execution""
If that is so - how can the death penalty be a "deterrent" as Mr Hitchens claims it would be?
Surely if life imprisonment is *immeasurably more cruel* than execution, then life imprisonment would act as more of a deterrent?
Yet he claims he wants the death penalty as a "deterrent".

Life imprisonment is without doubt monstrously cruel. But it is not terrifying, except to those gifted with very powerful imaginations. . Death is.

Cruelty and fear are not on the same calculus. That is why I say that it is kinder to execute than to imprison.

Mr Bishop asks : 'Correct me if i'm wrong but didn't the former hangman Albert Pierrepoint, towards the end of his life,became opposed towards the death penalty and thought that it failed to act as a deterrent against murder?'

Yes, that is correct.

Had he taken the opposite opinion, abolitionists would have dismissed his view as self-serving, and pointed out (correctly) that he had no special qualification to judge on this matter.

Mr Pierrepoint was a competent and humane executioner. His views on deterrence are no more and no less valid than anyone else's.
I would imagine that many years of performing this unlovely task ( years which ended with a petty dispute with the authorities) might colour anyone's view. It doesn't seem conclusive to me, or even an argument.

Andrew Bishop asks about Albert Pierrepoint's views on execution. Mr Pierrepoint's views remained somewhat ambiguous until death. While in his autobiography he wrote, "I have come to the conclusion that executions solve nothing, and are only an antiquated relic of a primitive desire for revenge which takes the easy way and hands over the responsibility for revenge to other people...The trouble with the death penalty has always been that nobody wanted it for everybody, but everybody differed about who should get off", he later said, ""Oh, I could go again", when asked if would still be happy to execute particularly gruesome killers.

His views are an interesting side question but ultimately they are just that - his views. They possibly have more validity than other peoples but we shouldn't treat them as a definitive moral answer the rest of us should surrender to. He isn't here to elaborate anymore and, doubtless, there are executioners the world over who wouldn't share his ambiguity whichever side of the fence they fall.

'Bert' asserts : 'The death penalty is different from"predictably lethal wars or predictably lethal transport" because it has no other purpose than killing. '

Did he think at all, before writing this? The death penalty quite obviously has several other purposes, one of which is the deterrence of lethal violence and murder, as well as the deterrence of the carrying of lethal weapons by criminals.(Much as just wars are permitted because - amongst other things - although they involve deliberate killing, the good they do is greater than the harm they do. This is easier to achieve through execution than through war because of the far greater likelihood of killing the author of the wicked deed, and the far smaller likelihood of making innocents suffer).

Other purposes include the engendering of repentance in the murderer, though materialists would not be interested in that, and in satisfying the desire of those wronged by the crime for justice, so preventing private vengeance and blood feuds.

These purposes exist whether 'Bert' or anyone else accepts that they are achieved or justified, or agrees with them. It is simple drivel to state that the death penalty has 'no other purpose than killing'. A moment's reflection reveals this.

Yet again, oppositionalism for the sake of oppositionalism, divorced from serious thought or consideration. The man's a joke, made funnier by his pretensions.

I have dealt a dozen times with the point about execution in the USA. A few executions take place. But effective capital punishment, swiftly and generally applied, does not exist in any state there.

Index, index, index. Why do these lazy people enter this argument without any attempt at preparation or study, trotting out the feeble, exploded argumenst they picked up in some PSHE class years ago?

As for whether a properly applied death penalty causes the things that follow it, I would be more than happy to conduct a ten-year experiment. Abolitionists would have to agree not to obstruct the functioning of the penalty. Restorationists would have to agree that, if the experiment did not produce the results they claimed, they would abandon the cause forever. Let it begin tomorrow. But the abolitionists would never do so . Their reasons for opposing the death penalty have nothing to do with such matters. They oppose it because it enshrines the principle that a free man is responsible for his own actions, a principle they fear and hate, and wish to remove from the justice system.

"The death penalty is different from “predictably lethal wars or predictably lethal transport policies” because it has no other purpose than killing. If for the sake o argument you accept that a war can be just, then the death of innocent civilians is an unfortunate consequence which of course we should aim to minimise."

Sorry Thucy but this is tripe. Just the same tired old argument trotted out by supporters of illegal wars (not that you necessarily are, but you certainly use their argument) who want to have their cake and eat it. In other words, they claim moral self righteousness for themselves, coldly dismissing the deaths of genuine innocents as, "an unfortunate consequence...we should aim to minimise", while screaming down supporters of execution as monstrous dinosaurs.

Or, to put it another way, they believe they have the right to kill whomever they wish in far away countries if it makes them feel a bit more liberal and secular, but woe betide anyone think execution a just punishment for a child killer.

No matter how often they try to delude themselves and others that this philosophy makes them somehow more morally just than everyone else, this just doesn't stack up.

The death penalty is different from “predictably lethal wars or predictably lethal transport policies” because it has no other purpose than killing. If for the sake o argument you accept that a war can be just, then the death of innocent civilians is an unfortunate consequence which of course we should aim to minimise. As for your strange fixation with transport policies, what do you propose? Banning all cars, trains, planes and bikes (since you can guarantee that somebody, somewhere, at some point in the future, will have a nasty bike accident and kill themselves, and possibly others – so better be on the safe side)?

You say that you “have established that greater violence has followed the abolition of the death penalty”, but you have not, of course, established cause. Has violence in, say, Texas, not increased? Seems unlikely. And that a civilisation that won't defend itself will soon cease to exist 'demonstrat' absolutely nothing about the need for a death penalty.

(Your interpretation of “let him who is without sin” is extraordinary. On this logic “render unto Caesar” and the rest referred only to the circumstances when Jesus said them, and were intended to have no wider meaning. But I know that, as a non-believer, I’m not supposed to comment on the bible.)

Mister Hitchens Writes:
"Funny, in fact, that so many who are squeamish about the swift and humane execution of justly convicted killers are so relaxed about the mass murder, often by tearing them to pieces with metal instruments, of unborn babies, the bombing of Belgrade, Baghdad and Afghanistan (and now of Libya)."
But what the militiant anti-choice folks cannot seem to understand is that there is a fundamental difference between a human being, however morally reprehensible, who wants, and has the mental capacity to want, to go on living and a human being who cannot, whether that person is an unborn child or in a vegetative state. At the time of death , the unborn child does not have fears, hopes, or desires. It is not capable of love or empathy, none of those attributes we consider unique, or almost unique, to our species. As for the pain a child goes through during the abortion, the pain a child will feel in most instances of abortion is far less than what is experienced by a cow when it is slaughtered. That cow in fact, is far more capable of feeling pain, terror, etc.. than a fetus. I wonder if Mister Hitchens looks on with the same terror before eating the steak, or veal, that he does when looking at pictures of the dead unborn.

Also Mister Hitchens, (given your views on abortion and the death penalty) I wonder if you agree with many in my country, the United States, who argue for the reducing of the sentence for Joe Tiller's murderer from murder to manslaughter, calling it a case of good conscience taking disagreeable action. This man it should be noted, shot Tiller in cold blood, in front of his family, during Sunday services, where Tiller was a volunteer.

Michael Hyde(14 April 2011 at 3.32 pm); I have often asked that question to abolitionist minded people I know and never had a satisfactory answer. It is the nature and intention of the act and not the act itself that distinguishes execution from murder, arrest from kidnap, fines from theft and surgery from grievous bodily harm.

Regarding another point, I read at the end of this thread that Mr Hitchens fears blood feuds and vengeance as the justice system fails. I can only say that I agree with this point of view, but I have always thought that in such circumstances, the death penalty will also be reintroduced but without genuine safeguards that such a penalty requires in order to be practiced properly. I think we are seeing a slightly similar thing in the Caribbean states (ie trying to cut corners re the Privy Council due to it making "wrong" decisions, politicians using it to look "tough" etc). I would be interested to know if Mr Hitchens thinks such a scenario possible in Britain. Your thoughts please Sir.

Correct me if i'm wrong but didn't the former hangman Albert Pierrepoint, towards the end of his life,became opposed towards the death penalty and thought that it failed to act as a deterrent against murder?

On the question of those without sin casting the first stone . If Jesus were alive today and stoning was our prefered method. I have a feeling after asking the same question, he would be trampled in the rush.
After all it still goes on today in certain countries. And willing stone throwers are found.
reminds me of that scene in "the life of Brian .Pricelessly funny.
I remember, a convicted murderer's wish to be shot by a firing squad, some time back, in the US of A. They thought getting seven to do the deed was impossible .So they advertised. Twelve thousand replied.
The moral of this is, were people that different 2000 years ago .I doubt it .Therefore casting doubt on it ever being said at that time.
But added at a later date as seemingly a smart story.

"If execution drags us down to the level of a murderer, does imprisonment drag us to the level of the kidnapper?"

I absolutely agree, and had thought of making that point myself. Does issuing speeding fines drag us down to the level of a thief, mugger or pickpocket? Clearly there is a distinction to be made, and the question is surely one of authority. I would like to see the abolitionists address that, not keep flitting around arguments of practicality/expediency...

Those who oppose capital penalties being made available to the courts for the punishment of persons duly convicted of specified crimes aometimes profess to do so because they believe it wicked even to risk the undeniable possibility of a miscarriage of justice which might lead to a person legally innocent being put to death by the authorities.
Such a risk must plainly always - given how fallible even careful human beings can be - exist. The question therefore is whether that risk must automatically exclude capital penalties from our rulers' deliberations.
But our rulers are reported by the news media to have recently on several occasions authorised the launching against some foreign nations of terrible, destructive weapons, which cannot, it seems, be programmed to destroy only guilty persons in their target area while leaving the innocent unscathed.
If those news media reports are true - which I have no way of knowing - it is difficult not to conclude that the lives and persons of innocent people are regarded by those rulers as - at best - expendable in what is seen as a good cause.
The objection therefore to capital penalties on the ground that innocent life must on no account be endangered - virtuous as that plainly is - simply could not 'wash', so to speak, with our current rulers, unless they were prepared to admit to holding foreign innocent lives cheaper than domestic innocent lives - and even than domestic guilty ones, if it comes to that.

PH isn't answering the point earlier in the thread that I referred to That swift judicial execution might be merciful to the perpetrator, but leaves a deep and permanent scar on his/her relatives and friends. What have they done to deserve this egregious punishment save for being the child/wife/friend of the hanged man?. That bitterness doesn't go away. It can lead to all sorts of unpleasant outcomes.

But my deeper concern stretches back to the days of Tyburn. We might have taken executions indoors but that didn't prevent the repulsive prurience associated with executions persisting.

And yes I have seen inside prisons. Armley gaol is a ghastly place and I've spent several hours there on two separate occasions. And no, I wouldn't wish it on anyone. But PH isn't seriously suggesting that the reintroduction of capital punishment will do away with long prison sentences?

My teenage son was recently the victim of a vicious unprovoked assault that left him with concussion and loose teeth. I've gone through the whole gamut of emotions. I know what that thirst for revenge and retribution feels like. But it's not a side of me that I like nor one that I seek to encourage. Sure I want the perpetrator punished but I don't want him brutalised. Because it brutalises all of us.

Which goes to the heart of my deeply felt opposition to state sanctioned execution.. And I am sincerely glad that, as with so many other things that PH is nostalgic for, the chances of its return are next to zero.

As I asked on another thread (and which Mr Bunker was kind enough to think a good question), if execution drags us down to the level of a murderer, does imprisonment drag us to the level of the kidnapper?

If those who oppose execution on the grounds that it is wrong to kill and to do so debases society, how can they argue that imprisonment against one's will is not wrong and does not debase us? Surely either both acts of unpleasantness are wrong or neither?

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the moderator has approved them. They must not exceed 500 words. Web links cannot be accepted, and may mean your whole comment is not published.